From mbays@freeshell.org Tue Oct 07 17:51:11 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:51:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tmailb1.svr.pol.co.uk ([195.92.168.141]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 1A72Xc-0006fI-3r for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 17:51:00 -0700 Received: from modem-1346.rhino.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.101.66] helo=thedave.homelinux.org) by tmailb1.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1A72XY-00082t-V6 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2003 01:50:57 +0100 Received: from thedave.homelinux.org (IDENT:1001@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h981oIxC009007 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:50:21 GMT Received: from localhost (martin@localhost) by thedave.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) with ESMTP id h981oFsS009004 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:50:16 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: thedave.homelinux.org: martin owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 01:50:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Martin Bays X-X-Sender: martin@thedave.homelinux.org To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: consolation In-Reply-To: <20031007225243.53681.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 6379 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list cu'u la xod. > > la maten cusku di'e > > > So can that be summarised as - > > - whenever {le nu broda} is of an event type which has a mo'u (i.e a > > process), {le nu broda cu mulno} <==> {pu mo'u broda} ==> {ba'o > > broda} > > Perhaps {lo nu broda cu mulno} <==> {ba'o mo'u broda}, since the > LHS is tenseless so the RHS should be tenseless too. > Hmmm... I see your point, but I'm not sure using multiple ZAhO in a single tense gives a meaningful tense, at least in CLL Lojban. I would interpret that as, if anything, "At some glorked point in time, something both is having broda-ed and is at the point of completion of broda-ing" - which makes no sense. > > - for states (and activities?), {le nu broda cu mulno} means something > > along the lines of broda being as true as possible during the > > state/activity. > > Yes, I suppose that it has to work for activities too: > > le nu mi bajra cu mulxadba ze'a le pamoi mentu gi'eku'i > mulno ze'a le drata temci > My running was half-hearted for the first minutes, but > to the full for the rest of the time. > 'K. Though again, your non-CLL use of tense seems strange to me, however useful. > > - for point-events...? Both interpretations make sense. > > Do you have an example? No. But only because I don't really understand point events, except as another way of looking at states/activities/processes - which is why I said both the state and process version make sense. > > > - for objects, mulno's other, three-place structure applies. > > I suppose we could say that for events the full place structure > applies too, with x2 being {le ka ce'u fasnu}: > > le nu mi klama le zarci cu mulno le ka fasnu} > My going to the market is complete in its occurring. > > le nu mi gleki cu mulno le ka fasnu > My being happy is complete in its occurring. > Sounds reasonable. Alternatively you could take the event definition to be primitive, and define the object one in terms of it: {ke'a mulno le ka [ce'u] broda} :<==> {le nu ke'a broda cu mulno} But then we have the problem of whether {le nu ke'a broda} is a state or a process - {mi ca mulno le ka jmive} could be either "I have completed the process of living [and am dead]" or "I am completely alive". And if not that, then how in general to interpret the x2 of mulno? mu'o mi'e maten.